My knowledge of such things is close to absolute zero, but is not this, linked to by Instapundit (where more links and updates are even now accumulating) today, rather exciting?
Toshiba has developed a new class of micro size Nuclear Reactors that is designed to power individual apartment buildings or city blocks. The new reactor, which is only 20 feet by 6 feet, could change everything for small remote communities, small businesses or even a group of neighbors who are fed up with the power companies and want more control over their energy needs.
Damn right. It seems to me that if that caught on, the rules of energy would be changed for ever. Traditionally, energy has been a huge, heavily politicised industry. If only for that reason, politicians everywhere will fight this like cornered rats.
The 200 kilowatt Toshiba designed reactor is engineered to be fail-safe and totally automatic and will not overheat. Unlike traditional nuclear reactors the new micro reactor uses no control rods to initiate the reaction. The new revolutionary technology uses reservoirs of liquid lithium-6, an isotope that is effective at absorbing neutrons. The Lithium-6 reservoirs are connected to a vertical tube that fits into the reactor core. The whole whole process is self sustaining and can last for up to 40 years, producing electricity for only 5 cents per kilowatt hour, about half the cost of grid energy.
I have always found the Samizdata commentariat to be at their best when educating the rest of us about high tech issues like this one. Is this plausible? Is it safe? Will it be that cheap? Is today really April 1st and not December 20th at all?
Toshiba expects to install the first reactor in Japan in 2008 and to begin marketing the new system in Europe and America in 2009.
Bring it on. Never have I felt as optimistic about the future of nuclear power as I do right now, for this development turns nuclear power from a clunky, expensive mega-muddle that is totally dependent upon politics, to something that is small, simple, cheap and dependent only on the good sense of some people. Not everyone has to like this, and many will be flinging faeces in all directions about it. But not everyone has to. All it needs is a few countries, and a few people in those countries, to say yes.
How about this as a way to sell it? If you oppose it, you are in favour of Islamist terrorism. That should loosen things up a bit. An Instapundit emailer says that this technology is old news, updated. So, it’s been around all along, has it? Do you get the feeling that some kind of political switch has been thrown? Rather than fighting like cornered rats, perhaps the politicians of the West who really matter are now willing to relax some of their their control over power supplies, if that’s what it takes to separate those pesky Muslims from their oil money.
The biggest complaint about small nuclear has always been proliferation-based, not technical, to my understanding. Nuclear power plants as they’re built today are massive, difficult to hide, and expensive. While that’s a bad thing, in some ways, from the point of view of energy production, it means that they can be well-secured and that if any nation you don’t want having nukes starts building one(e.g., Iraq), you can deal with them. A small reactor has none of those virtues – any nation can buy them by the dozen, either directly or through front companies, and any semi-competent group of burglars can get their hands on fissile material. I assume it’d be using low-grade uranium, not stuff that can be put straight into weapons, but that doesn’t change the arguments raised against it. On top of that, most people who don’t have a familiarity with nuclear power generation are deathly afraid of it at the best of times, and the fact that you go from having a ten-foot concrete wall and a room full of geeky control techs to having a manufacturer’s guarantee is not likely to create confidence at the best of times. Of course, the second concern is crap, and the first is overblown, but that doesn’t change the political dynamics of this.
Whoever adopts a technology that greatly reduced their oil consumption and dependence on all manner of nasty people (and do not assume I am just referring to Russia and the Middle East) will have such a great advantage, no ‘political’ objections will stand for long.
They don’t go into much detain in the sales brochure, but it has all the earmarks of a Radioisotope Thermal Generator, or RTG. This works by packing a modest amount of nuclear fuel in a can in such a way that it gets hot, but can’t melt itself down. Power is taken from this by packing the hot core with thermocouples, which produce electricity when heated. An earlier version of this was a Russian device called “Topaz”. Originally designed to provide power to spacecraft over long time periods, they would be launched with control rods inserted as a form of “off switch”. Once in space, the rods were jettisoned, and the power came on. Shielding was left off to save weight.
They were not particularly efficient, but lasted a long time, and had no moving parts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator
Absent terrorists, probably not a bad idea, otherwise it’s the makings of a really toxic dirty bomb in truck-portable form, just add explosives.
My gut says that a nuclear reactor in your basement is moderately safer than having Russians on the other end of your pipes.
I don’t know if this is a completely new design or not.
But general idea has been out there:
http://www.atomicengines.com/
(an example)
In addition, I remember the Chinese were looking into small pebble reactors- they want to bring power to rural areas.
I read about this idea back in the 80s, and I wish the nuclear industry hadn’t been shackled so badly because this was the obvious way to go, even back then.
And I don’t think the threat of people stealing the radioactive material is very real. There just isn’t enough material, nor would it be in a weaponized form.
Oh great.
I’ve been promising the nephew I’d finish that SheVa I’ve been building in the back garden, but I’ve been putting him off by pointing out that there are no commercially available nuclear power plants small enough to fit inside the hull.
Do you think he’ll buy that the original Bun Bun used pebble bed reactors? That might buy me a bit of time.
Otherwise it’s going to be a bugger explaining to the neighbours why their vegetable garden, (and house, and the rest of the street), have been flattened on Christmas Day.
My gut says that a nuclear reactor in your basement is moderately safer than having Russians on the other end of your pipes.
Oh, I don’t know. I enjoyed having a Russian on the end of my pipe so much that I married her.
Doesn’t seem to be anything prominent on Toshiba’s web site about this. Toshiba did propose a design for a small nuclear plant at an Alaskan village a few years back — it involved liquid sodium metal for heat transfer (gulp!) and regular steam turbine power generation. Can’t say if the current news item is real or not.
Generally, the economics of power plants favor big installations. Lot of fixed costs in things like security, power transmission, maintenance shop, insurance — better to amortize those over a large output.
But the suggestion makes one wonder what the nuclear energy industry might look like if it were given the same regulatory treatment as, say, Liquified Natural Gas regasification plants.
The economics of power generation have been changing due to advances in technology. It is inherently better to generate power close to the user because of the large transmission line loses. True, there are some superconductor links of some miles coming on line, but we are still far from them replacing the national grid.
The ability to generate smaller amounts of power locally is also driving the expanding market in fuel cells. Quite a lot of new buildings in NYC have them as back up and for times when extra power is needed.
The things about most generation schemes is that they output a certain amount of energy when operating optimally and use have to use it, store it or lose it. That’s where co-generation comes in. Technology has been advancing that makes that easier to handle (you really have to have your generators all exactly in phase or else really nasty things happen…)
I can see this taking off in Japan as they are very tech-friendly and also totally dependent on imports for fuel. I’ve heard it said that there is a line of supertankers between the Middle East and Japan with each one in site of the smoke of the one in front and behind it. True or not, it’s does give you a picture of the problem Japan faces.
The US will probably get tied up in green tape for decades; the EU will have a variable penetration. France likes nuclear and would probably go for it. The UK… you’d have idiots chained to the local fire hydrants and trying to burn the building down.
Another place this technology is very useful is in space. Whether it is an RTG like those used on deep space probes or a small nuclear reactor like Topaz, it cannot hurt the price that it is mass produced.
Of course if you slap a sticker on it that says ‘space rated’ you just put a factor of 10 on the prices anyway… that’s life in my biz.
The Department of Water and Power (a city-owned agency) in El Pueblo de Los Angeles continues to admonish us to conserve power. To date, we have no choice but to use this agency, if we want electricity. I wonder how it’d go if a number of neighborhoods ran these power plants and allowed their excess power to flow into the DWP grid. According to state law, DWP would have to pay for it, and would then be less able to claim a power shortage.
Thus, I expect the City to regulate against such power plants.
One of those for my rural property would be just great. I’m sure that it’s not green enough for the hordes out there – and that the true agenda, to get most of us back to 1800s conditions while Chairman Gore and his favoured few jet above the plebs, will soon come out.
The SlowPoke reactor has been around for a while. Plus there was Nanuke of the North
Cheers
Ha, ha, ha! That was great Tim Newman! Russian women have always been appreciating a good Pipe in a Working Order, the Russian men have never been capable of providing them with. In the mid seventies of the previus century, many of my Polish friends worked on a construction of so called “Pipeline of Friendship” that was supposed to provide the oil to the countries of the so called “people’s democracy”. There was never a short supply of Russian women…
Anyone know about the Bussard polywell fusion reactor?
Anyone seen this lecture Bussard gave to Google?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606
All the reports I have read lead to believe that working fusion will be established in 2008. Direct production of electricity at 10% of the cost of coal based generation, and the energy output scales by the seventh power to linear dimensions of the generator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/08/bussard-fusion-may-be-funded.html
Can anyone comment on this? Someone who’s knowledge of fusion research is better than mine?
I wonder if selling the power back would be a way to defray the costs.
Anyway, I want one so that I can survive the post-zombie apocalypse.
At 5c per KWh, I am almost certain that there would be sufficient money left over to provide for the security of the plant and still run a profitable enterprise.
You know, apart from loving high tech for the sheer beauty of it, the thing I like most about these things, whether it be Toshibas micro nuke or the Bussard fusion reactor, is that in providing high tech, high energy solutions to the perceived (but non existent) problem of anthropogenic global warming, they will make Georgy Monbiots head explode.
Now that would be a result.
So – with my tongue only partly in my cheek – rather than attach a wind turbine to my chimney or solar panels to my roof, could I get a green energy grant to put one of these in my back garden, and similarly sell power back to the grid?
…and to Billll, good point and I wouldn’t be surprised if it is indeed an RTG.The ones on the Voyager probes are still going, I understand :-).
Sorry, it doesn’t seem to me a good idea to have millions of these contraptions, containing radioactive material, dispersed among the people, in residential areas. Accidents will happen, boxes will break apart, spent reactors will be left to rot in backyards… no, you don’t treat radioactive material in such a casual way.
I will be content if the ban on big reactors for big utilities is lifted.
Using Lithium-6 to absorb neutrons should result in the production of Tritium (plus Helium).
This could produce a supply of fuel for Deuterium-Tritium fusion reactors (either IEC or Tokamak).
(Yes, I know Boron-Proton is a better candidate [aneutronic] for fusion if it can be made to work – but there seems to be some doubt whether it’s theoretically possible for B-P fusion to generate more power than it requires.)
Depends entirely on the pipe. One with a 1:9 rifling twist comes to mind.
I guess my questions are (and no, I didn’t RTFA):
(1) What is the fuel for this thing, and how much does it need?
(2) What kind of waste does it produce, and how much?
As for:
Accidents will happen, boxes will break apart, spent reactors will be left to rot in backyards… no, you don’t treat radioactive material in such a casual way.
You would be shocked to learn how much radioactive material is in circulation, some of it quite, quite hot indeed, outside of government and utilities channels. What I am aware of is used in medical facilities, and radiosurgery requires some smokin’ hot stuff (not bomb-grade, but hot nonetheless). Nonetheless, there have been few to no accidents of any scope.
Stop dreaming, guys……….my completely non-tech take on this is one or all of the following. If it’s any good it won’t be allowed. Owners would be taxed the equivalent of their power-savings, or, probably more. Far too dangerous; what’s wrong with candles, base-jumping & building your new holiday villa on the slopes of Etna It’s not fair. Owners must contribute all their new-found power to the National Grid & pay the going rate. Using a mobile telephone within 100m of your new toy will put you in the pokey for two decades. What about the workers? I shall lose my job/pension/mind. If it occupies the garden, where can I build my thunder-box? What would mother say?
There’s an interesting What If around this. Back in the early days of nuclear plants, there was discussion around building small Submarine sized plants and using them locally. They’re small, safe as houses and pretty much useless for neferious purposes.
2007 has been a pretty positive year for stuff like this. LED lighting systems are starting to be viable so we can skip the hell of low energy fluresecent bulbs; high density capacitors are making electric cars with charging times more like a petrol vehicle practical; solar power cells are dropping in price and increasing in efficiency.
With local nuclear power generation we could start to limit oil use to the important stuff that it’s not easy to substitute for like aircraft and move to a cleaner nuclear-electric future.
There has been indeed been lots of talk of small nuclear energy reactors (of various different designs) since at least the 1940’s.
But I have heard that Toshiba may finally be bopping their way through the political resistance – we shall have to see.
Sadly I do not think the United States will go for any of this.
The recent “Energy Bill” contained no deregulation of nuclear power at all – just stuff to turn Thomas Edison, if he was still alive, into a criminal (yes “ban the light bulb” has arrived in the United States) and messing about with auto emission standards (to try and make sure that every car on American roads is imported). But Bush Brain signed the the measure anyway.
No nuclear power stations have been built in the United States for many years – because of the regulation and other such.
The last news I heard was that a special coal fired station is being built, at taxpayers expense, in Illinois.
The powers-that-be had considered various ways of dealing with the C02 emitted by buring coal – they, of course, picked the most absurd and expensive way of dealing with it.
The only dispute was “is it going to be built in Illinois or in Texas” – the fact that it is a sick joke that should not be built at all was not considered important.
Still let us hope that Japan leads the way, with new and better designed nuclear generators.
In Europe it is not just France.
Now that the Swiss People’s Party has finally gone into opposition there may, paradoxically, be hope for Switzerland.
To solve a problem one must first accept that it exists – and largest Swiss party had to understand that it could not work with all these corrupt leftist factions, before it can start work to defeat them all.
Privitization of energy and deregulation allowing small companies to build atomic energy producers might be just the issue to use.
The Swiss Reds and Greens (and their puppets) would go mad – they would riot and smash things and murder people (yes I mean murder people).
All of which would discredit them nicely.
I like your article,I think putting a nuclear reactor in house is dangerous.In fact,you do not know what will happen to it.
It is just like a bomb,so it is unsutible to set up in your house.
Ian Sun, please take the care to learn the bare minimum of facts about a topic before pontificating on it–you have my thanks in advance. Unless you’re in the USSR (a nice trick, as that nation faces a severe existence deficit at present), PROC, or any other nation that places social “progress” ahead of even direct individual safety, nuclear power is safer than all other forms of energy production, directly or indirectly, combined.